Kym Sweet, Australian idiot, Gets the Meads treatment

[serfmaninthepolis]

There goes serfwhateverheis, again -- chasing, like a dog after a rabbit, after a side topic of mine. He again uses the "argument from verbosity" logical fallacy, at great length, to completely miss the point of my comment, which responded to his assertion that "like the claim of 'frivolity,' this sort of view could be (tho isn't necessarily) a collateral attack where one simply denies the coherence of the words and phrases use, as a way to avoid having to deal with them."

Yes, it "could be", in someone's delusion; but it "could not be," in anything like the cases which we are discussing.

Now, serfsomethingorother, my patience is REALLY getting thin. Your next serving of word salad might get tossed.

[ridiculous comment removed]

[AnOwlCalledSage]

"Consider the lilies..."

"aaaaah".

[wserra]

So, "scientific proof" is different from "legal proof."

No shit.

Most people can say that in eight words. It takes you 8000.

[serfmaninthepolis]

So, "scientific proof" is different from "legal proof."

No shit.

Most people can say that in eight words. It takes you 8000.

So why would anyone conflate scientific proof (man cannot fly) with legal proof (men are not subject to the state without consent, or whatever the thesis is)? The latter is fundamentally not a scientific question, so comparing it to "men cannot fly to the moon" is frivolous gibberish.

[more gibberish snipped]

[AnOwlCalledSage]

So why would anyone conflate scientific proof (man cannot fly) with legal proof (men are not subject to the state without consent, or whatever the thesis is)? The latter is fundamentally not a scientific question, so comparing it to "men cannot fly to the moon" is frivolous gibberish.

[more gibberish snipped]

Who is this 'anyone' conflating words? Only an idiot wouldn't understand at a word can have different meanings in different contexts. And that would be you.

For someone self-proclaiming that they are philosophically well read you don't appear to understand what a standard dictionary is for.

[serfmaninthepolis]

So why would anyone conflate scientific proof (man cannot fly) with legal proof (men are not subject to the state without consent, or whatever the thesis is)? The latter is fundamentally not a scientific question, so comparing it to "men cannot fly to the moon" is frivolous gibberish.

[more gibberish snipped]

Who is this 'anyone' conflating words? Only an idiot wouldn't understand at a word can have different meanings in different contexts. And that would be you.

For someone self-proclaiming that they are philosophically well read you don't appear to understand what a standard dictionary is for.

Dictionaries are sort of useless for establishing the meaning of words, they have two forms, one is circular, the other contains undefined terms, e.g.

Circular:
{A: BC, B: AC, C: BA}

Undefined:
{A: BC, B: CD, C:BA}

I favor Aristotle's account of how a sound becomes a noun, it is by treaty (kata suntheke) and the reason we can make these treaties is because we share the same 'affections in the soul.' So the words represent mental states, not words, that is, like, the view that a degenerate computer program would have, a sort of Chinese Room style language processing, ala Searle.

[eric]

So the words represent mental states, not words, that is, like, the view that a degenerate computer program would have, a sort of Chinese Room style language processing, ala Searle.

Uh.... no. Searle's contribution to AI and natural language processing have been viewed as intellectual masturbation that bear no relevance to the real world. About his only contribution to the field was a flurry of attempts in the 1980's to patent algorithms using his philosophy that all failed. For those of you that don't know the Chinese Room Problem here ya go. Using google type in any phrase from Blackstone. Take the eleventh hit result and copy paste the second paragraph. Repeat as often as required, using random hits and paragraphs. The observer cannot tell that I am a computer program, a human being, or serfmanwhatever. BTW, Searle was a particularly nasty example of the academic who thinks he is as a god, something about being a scummy landlord, a little bit racist and would trade academic advancement for sexual favors.

[Albert Haddock]

It's always possible you just can't read English. I mean, there are always two options when you cannot comprehend something, it is above your mind, or it is nonsense.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Emper ... ew_Clothes

It isn’t likely to work when nobody agrees with you.

[Albert Haddock]

(1) The problem with your view is that the Courts are no longer charged with maintaining nothing more than ancient customs, striking down anything that conflicts with precedent. That's simply not how they function…

Actually, in common law jurisdictions that is exactly how they function where judicial precedent is concerned, unless the judicial precedent has been superseded by legislation.

Did the defendant in the case in question cite any such legislation?

Sorry, only just seen the thread, and as far as I can see this hasn’t been addressed.